‘Is Linux Splitting Into Two Factions?’

Kevin Carmony, CEO of Linspire, writes: “With the recent news of several Linux vendors entering into partnership agreements with Microsoft (Novell, Linspire, Xandros), there has been much debate recently about two factions of Linux forming. Saying that Linux is going to be torn in two, makes for good press and lively debates, but this is certainly nothing new for Linux.”

54 Comments

The Linux community is split into as many factions as it has users. That large numbers of users happen to use certain distributions and share certain preferences is merely a social phenomenon. We’re every man for themselves, each with the freedom to express our individuality through code, words, art, politics, and the interaction thereof.

What binds us together is our use of copyleft, share-alike copyright licenses that ensure that our unique contributions to the remain the sovereign property of the community. This is a powerful notion, and it is not surprising that some users feel compelled to pay and trade for confirmation of such valuable rights.

I consider this not unlike charity, and although there are software vendors more deserving of voluntary donations than Microsoft, the honest among us will admit that there are less deserving firms as well. Voluntary compensation for the use of free software in no way affects one’s right to use it without compensation. My donation to Ardour, for example, does not affect anyone else’s right to use Ardour without payment.

As free software becomes more prominent, businesses will find all manner of excuses to pay and trade for rights in software that has been freely distributed for anyone’s use. Businesses make deals; it’s what they do. They’re not used to doing business with parties that offer the same non-exclusive deal to everybody. They’re going to look for ways to use their assets to get a deal that seems different and better.

Those of us that find this game disturbing must realize that by distributing free software, we continue to assert our right to do so, and this right has never been challenged. By distributing free software, the few distributors that have signed patent covenant deals with Microsoft continue to assert their right to do so without these deals. These distributors want to offer their customers a different deal. It doesn’t matter if the difference has no real value, because people value difference in and of itself.

These vendors and their customers have found a way to express their individuality by making and accepting deals with Microsoft. It doesn’t make sense to many people, but it makes sense to them. There are several commercial Linux distributions to choose from, but only some of them come with a special message of forgiveness from Microsoft for one’s decision to chose a competing vendor.

Some of us have borderline irrational and obsessive relationships with particular free software projects. Many businesses have a similar relationship with Microsoft. Free software can appeal to all sorts of people and their wide spectrum of preferences and neuroses. Let them get their special promise from Microsoft. It’s silly and unnecessary, but we’ve always accepted eccentricity in our community.

Now is not the time to start alienating those with an unhealthy fear of Microsoft. Our community is well-equipped to treat this condition, and many of us believe that it is our moral obligation to reach out of Microsoft addicts. Microsoft is telling their frightened customers that its ok to use some kinds of Linux.

Hopefully after realizing the benefits of free software, these converts will also realize that they don’t need Microsoft’s permission to use free software. They can chose whatever free software they want, and there’s nothing Microsoft can do to them. Let them discover freedom.

you have put together a well thought out post. unfortunately your logic is flawed. there is a very real wrong vs. right in this case. people and corporations are swallowing what basically amounts to extortion and justifying it by calling it ‘interoperability’.

nice try.

want *actual* interoperability? start by adhering to established and accepted standards, for one. no patent ‘agreement’ required. linspire is perfectly welcome to license WMA or whatever the hell they want. if their customers demand it, people will buy it. but, by signing any agreement referring to violated patents that the supposedly infringing software developers and users are essentially forbidden access to, they’re screwing the community. period. kevin carmony and co. have essentially said through their actions that all of the hard work and innovation of the open source community was stolen from microsoft. freaking microsoft!

given microsoft’s track record, i am honestly flabbergasted that there are still (honest) people defending their actions.

First of all, I’m not defending the patent covenants. I think that this situation is exhibit A in the case against software patents and the broken patent system in general. I agree that there is a right and wrong in this case, and I think that the community has spoken. Red Hat, Canonical, Mandriva, and all of the community distributions have rejected the patent covenants. Novell and a few “also-rans” have distanced themselves from the community, and the GPLv3 presents a threat.

These deals are likely to backfire on these vendors, and I can’t imagine how they could cause any legal setbacks for the community. These alleged patents will never be argued in court. By signing these deals, Microsoft has put themselves in a situation where it would be incredibly inexpedient for them to sue any Linux vendor or user for patent infringement. The community knows that, the mainstream media knows that, and the corporate world knows that.

Carmony and friends know this, too, but they also understand the basic point I made in my original post. They knew making patent deals with Microsoft would be meritless and unpopular in the Linux community, but they also knew that it would be popular among Microsoft-dominated small business IT shops.

They decided that the Linux community would moan and groan for a while, and meanwhile they would get their foot in the door of an SMB market that they believe is ripe for the picking (it’s not). The vendors that made these deals are the ones that lust after the SMB market. It doesn’t matter for the vendors that target the enterprise and the public sector, which are more realistic and profitable markets for commercial Linux right now.

Novell, Linspire, and Xandros are mismanaged companies that make bad decisions. The Microsoft deals were classic examples. These vendors pose no threat to the Linux community. The market will ultimately take care of them.

people and corporations are swallowing what basically amounts to extortion and justifying it by calling it ‘interoperability’.

The thing is, it’s not extortion. The Linux vendors aren’t charging anything for these patent covenants, which reflects the fact that they have no real value.

Microsoft says these deals are about patents. The Linux vendors says they’re about interoperability. Bull. These deals are about a marketing strategy where Linux vendors sell the idea that Linux can play nice in a Microsoft environment, and Microsoft sells the idea that adopting Linux doesn’t mean abandoning Microsoft technologies. Some Linux vendors insist on trying to beat Microsoft at their own game on their home turf, and Microsoft is happy to keep the dream alive.

i am honestly flabbergasted that there are still (honest) people defending their actions.

Not defending. Explaining. Why these deals happened, why they don’t matter, and why they will fail.

The thing is, it’s not extortion. The Linux vendors aren’t charging anything for these patent covenants, which reflects the fact that they have no real value.

maybe i didn’t sufficiently explain what i meant. i didn’t mean that the linux vendors were extorting money from customers. extortion doesn’t always involve the exchange of hard cash. i meant that microsoft is using their position to pull a ‘do this and nothing unfortunate will happen to you’ scenario. it’s frighteningly mafia-esque, quite frankly.

it just seems that you’re rather blasé about the gravity of the offense. you’re apparently taking the typical position of ‘the market will work itself out’. well, unfortunately, that’s not how it really works. if that was the case we wouldn’t have microsoft at all. if that was the case, we wouldn’t have walmart. if that was the case, we wouldn’t have any number of mega-bullies getting away with the abuses they are. sadly, consumers don’t have the balls to put their money with their mouth is and change the system.

Linspire cant talk for the hole open source community. They might think they can talk for the linux community but the open source community is so much more then just linux. Which you seem to forget when you claim that they have ruined all of the hard work done by the open source community. But other then that we pretty much agree.

IMO, no. Linux is not splitting into two fractions. It already is – the commercial side and the volunteer side. Some commercial companies have made commercial deals with Microsoft, their choice. Big deal, get over it.

” Some commercial companies have made commercial deals with Microsoft, their choice. Big deal, get over it.”

get over it?

how when the commercial side of linux is being taken over by microsoft with the ip deals their making with some of the linux distros. soon companies will start calling linux Microsoft’s other OS. when this happens what will happen to the voleenter side of linux. when it’s seen unlawful because these lame so-called linux distros are admitting that linux does infringe Microsoft’s ip by signing up with them.

I am one who isn’t thrilled by all the recent MicroLinux deals lately, but I do understand one thing Kevin C. is saying – they do openly and legally what many are doing secretly. I watch DVD’s under Linux. However, I have to “secretly” install libdvdcss to do it. With Linspire I can do it openly and above board with a licensed DVD player. I think most of us think the propietary bits like DVD, MP3, RealAudio, and for years, the JDK are not the best thing, and we would all love for the to be free and open (and Java soon will be!). However, one of the first things many of us do (not RMS, of course) is go get these proprietary bits. What companies like Linspire do is make it legal and above board. I do respect that. I just hope we can get to the point of not needing it!

I watch DVD’s under Linux. However, I have to “secretly” install libdvdcss to do it. With Linspire I can do it openly and above board with a licensed DVD player.

I know we are rehashing what is not a simple issue, but it still seems immoral that we have to do something secretly to watch a DVD that we paid full price for. Linspire may be on legal high ground, but not moral high ground.

You are NOT Linux. You do NOT speak for the Linux community. The Linux community could give two shits as to whether you are meeting you bottom line. The Linux community does NOT need your assistance in improving adoption. If you cannot make money off Linux without selling out and giving the competition legal ammo to attack the community then don’t let the doorknob get stuck in your a** on the way out.

Right on. Here, Here! You said everything I wanted to say but far more eloquently than I would have put it. Carmony is a sell out and not just because of this deal but because he created a distro called lindows. Real original pal.

It’s easy to see why Linspire entered into this agreement, something they are completely free and entitled to do.

This article explains why Linspire entered into an agreement with Microsoft. But it does not address why Microsoft entered into the agreement. Were or are Microsoft and Linspire singing from the same sheet with the same ends in view? I don’t know, but I’ll quote something from Microsoft’s own press release announcing the deal which Mr Carmony doesn’t mention:

“Intellectual Property Assurance

“Through the agreement, Microsoft and Linspire have developed a framework to provide patent covenants for Linspire customers. The patent covenants provide customers with confidence that the Linspire technologies they use come with rights to relevant Microsoft patents. As well, Linspire now joins a growing group of open source software (OSS) distributors collaborating with Microsoft on efforts to establish rich interoperability, deliver IP assurance to customers and build the bridge between open source and proprietary software.”

Given the recent history of Microsoft’s comments on Linux, the world is going to take those words in a certain way. So, some folks may conclude that either Mr Carmony has been co-opted into something he didn’t bargain for – in which case perhaps he seems to have been rather reticent in issuing a clarification – or he thinks this is OK. But then I could easily have missed something. It would be interested to know whether Linspire saw and approved Microsoft’s wording before the press release went out. The article’s a nice try and makes some good points as his articles usually do, but no cigar imho.

Some folks now are pissed at Novell and others for signing the agreement while corporate clients might turn their back to Red Hat because they didn’t sign.

They don’t even need to show anything concrete about what Linux infringes, they throw a rock in the water every now and then and watch the waves.

Fact is, if they actually came up with a legitimate list of patents, the community would find workarounds to all of them within 6 months. Then not only MS would loose a vector of FUD, but it would also demonstrate once again the Linux community’s ability to adapt.

first off, licensing codecs has nothing to do with bogus patents, mr. carmony.

secondly, so some greedy asshat megacorporations have lobbyists and dollars that can sway some equally greedy and morally bankrupt politicians into pushing restrictive and reprehensible IP laws. guess what? taking the ‘legal’ high ground and taking the ‘moral’ high ground are two extremely different things. i will never submit to the agenda of greed that you seem so eager to subscribe to. maybe some microsoft cronies showed you some patents, maybe not. by signing this sort of agreement, you’re basically slapping the face of those that truly take the moral high ground. you’re telling the world that you’re just fine with ridiculous software patents that should never have been granted. since microsoft refuses to make public which patents are being violated, you are by proxy denying developers the chance to even attempt to clean our code of these alleged violations.

when it comes down to it kevin, you know damn well nobody’s mad at you for ‘trying to give customers choices’. furthermore, it’s despicable that you’d pull that kind of double-speak.

I have to say here that I don’t think ‘cleaning code’ is going to have any affect on these so-called ‘software patents’. Namely because the system is so screwed up that they don’t patent actual code, but ideas of user interface design, like clicking on text to create a drop-down menu. Not sure if that’s actually one, but something like that. Who ever would buy the tripe that Microsoft is selling should be eating said tripe. Plain and simple, Software Patents should be eliminated. It’d be like me trying to patent the wearing of clothes. I’m sorry, everyone must pay me royalties to wear clothes. It doesn’t matter that mankind has been wearing clothes for hundreds of thousands of years, but since I thought about patenting it first, then everyone has to pay me.

i agree. the truth is, if microsoft actually showed these patents, they’d be in a lot of hot water. that’s why they don’t. they’re scared that the second they do, they’ll all get overturned for prior art, obviousness, etc. any patent not overturned would get worked around.

there’s a pretty good reason it’s not ‘too high up on the Linux totem pole’. linspire is a joke. considering the original promise/hype of ‘lindows’, it’s a wonder they’re still around at all. i seem to remember mr. carmony proudly touting the ability to run windows apps when he first showed up. funny thing is, all that linspire ever ended up as was a windows knockoff that doesn’t really run windows apps. he’s repackaged debian and contributed little apps of negligible generic value. lsongs? lphoto? cnr?

edit: let’s not forget linspire’s amazing retail presence at walmart. after all, their integrity is just legendary.

Everything you say I agree with and is true.Put it the way you did sounded like some of Microsoft’s own tactics.Feature hypes, then the tactic of acquisition and re-branding.

With Linspire’s promises one would have assumed that theirs would been a very logical option even if not choice for the pundits at Dell’s ideastorm.Didn’t and the koobox they seem to be on doesn’t have alot of mindshare as far as I can tell.

Give credit where credit is due. My wife and my 5 year-old boys have used Linspire exclusively for more than a year, since I have been overseas. Thry’ve never had any kind of problem that needs fixing. CNR keeps getting better and better. Linspire may not be perfect for certain OSS stalwarts, but it works quite well for the common consumer, which is Linspire’s target market.

It’s not like the companies signing deals with Microsoft really care about Linux, they’re just trying to make a quick buck. They’re all investing in making Linux more like Windows, and as such, they are irrelevant.

Linspire are just another company that don’t understand Linux… they are another Coral Linux, trying to provide what they think users want, when really they have no clue…

These deals with Microsoft just show how desperate these companies are. Meanwhile, companies like Red Hat, that actually understand Linux, are prodding along, making a lot of money.

Meanwhile, companies like Red Hat, that actually understand Linux, are prodding along, making a lot of money.

Red Hat does well on the *server*, but have all but abandoned the consumer desktop. You may not approve of what Novell/Xandros/Linspire have done [I certainly have my doubts], but at least understand that they are dealing with a different market.

FYI, Corel Linux was so successful that Microsoft bought a stake in Corel, allegedly to shut its Linux business division down.

Linspire pc’s at walmart are the reason for many people having negative views of linux. All i have to say to microsoft and its new ally in the attack on the linux community is put up or STFU. Show us the code. If linux is trade marked can the owner sue a corporation for libel for spreading lies and rumors and ruining its good reputation and in reality VALUE?

Well i like the first part because it is true that linux in some way have alwaise been devided… but the part where he diss other distro by claiming their are illegal and promote piracy… he’s pushing it a little bit too far

(Mr Karmony with all respect i think you are helping the division by posting such claim)

I am sure Mr.Carmony is hoping that his piece is making people reconsider being so much against these type of deals. By exaggerating the ‘split’ which many people would see as a bad thing in general, he’s hoping to sway people to be milder towards the companies that are entering into deals with MS. Personally, I don’t see any dangers from boycotting these companies.

I can understand KC not coming over to OSNews because he doesn’t want to take his bumps like a man. What I think is far more telling is that, not too long ago, whenever a negative Linspire story was posted KC and a whole group of minions would show up over here to bad mouth and mod down anyone remotely anti-Linspire. It seems even the most faithful of rats are abandoning ship.

Yes there are 2 linux factions. Those who want a linux they can actually use to do real work on and those who use linux as a political tool to support their ideology.

Thats right….

I just sit my system on an alter and dance naked around it.

Honestly, it is possible to adhere to ideology AND get work done.Do you honestly think people would purchase a computer to NOT get work done? Install a OS that doesnt do what is needed? Someone told/sold you the idea that you must pay and pay and pay for linux that works.

I suggest you go and drink some more KC-Kool-Aid….HEY KKKCCCC….Oh YEaaa….

no, there are a lot of things that require closed source solutions. Lots of people need to use 3d drivers, windows media, fonts. Many linux users are actually using lots of Microsoft apps such as IE and Office with crossover office. Why? because firefox and openoffice can’t offer the compatibility that they need. ok? you can’t live in the real world without office.

Why would they use linux just to run microsoft apps all the time? because they actually like the OS but don’t care about the politics.

This is just the editor and writer’s way of pidgeon-holing certain linux distributions. There’s really nothing different. I just assume that they all enter into agreements with Microsoft – maybe there’s some money to be gained from it. There’s certainly no money to be lost.

so that ppl can say hey i can play my dvd’s mp3’s etc without being sued then at the long turn we have nothing more to push company’s for using open standards.

look at amd and intel lately they never wanted u to have opensource drivers for there videocards now after so many years we have it. If some company’s start to pay now for some shit like dvd, mp3 codecs etc … then u can beter stick with your wintendo box or go apple.

sorry linux is ment to open and to be free not to have payed closed source in it and if we start to add it for one then at the end u have to do it for everyone.

i rather do it illegal at home if we all do it they have to change there policiy and for a company it doesnt mather they dont need mp3 dvd codecs anyway.

So this is similar to an earlier article on OSNews in March about the Linux Foundation. I’m more concerned about the “success” of Linux and the commercial distros http://www.teramari.us/node/15“>pushing out of the way. All this obsession with winning market share, is it more important than the ideology at stake?

MS actually showed what ip we are violating. Dvd decryption isn’t a MS thing. Outside of media codes extra i don’t see the issue, but as far as I know of one could just license them and then include them.

I think most of us would say “yeah this is needed” if they actually proved it did.

You know, as I think about the moral high ground statement. Sure its road that isn’t oh so legal but at the same time the idea of OPEN source is that all things are public. Sure business is business as we know it today but I think the idea..at least the one I have is “if it was open I wouldn’t have to do such things”. Which brings up the question of how do you run and be successful in business if your open, but to be honest I think its possible as the community would help make your product the better one.